|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 317 Records
-
1987 (3) TMI 389 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... rcumstances, if the Collector had held that there was contravention of Section 55 and if the G.C.A. had confirmed such a finding, no exception can be taken to such a finding. We, therefore, see no force in the present contention of Shri Jain. We accordingly reject this contention. 31. In the result, we allow this appeal in part. The personal penalty on all the partners, is set aside. The penalty if paid shall be refunded to them. 32. The order of confiscation of 619.250 gms. of gold ornaments received for repairs is hereby set aside. As a consequence, we reduce the fine from Rs. 30,000/- levied in lieu of confiscation of gold weighing 2783.750 to Rs. 24,000/-(Rupees twenty four thousand only). We also set aside a fine of Rs. 5,000/-levied in lieu of confiscation of 629.000 gms. of gold which was already included in gold ornaments weighing 1497.150 gms. The appellants be granted consequential reliefs. In other respects, the orders passed by the authorities below are confirmed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 387 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... iny by the Law department. 5. Shri Vineet Kumar further submitted that in view of the above he would reiterate all the arguments advanced on behalf of the Govt. in the matter before the Bombay High Court. As earlier mentioned, the Appellate Collector disposed of the matter before him following an earlier decision of the Govt. of India though he had stated in his order that in his opinion the view expressed in the order of the Govt. of India was not correct. But, apart from the said order of the Government of India we have two judgments of the Bombay High Court which had upheld the claim of the present respondents as to how assessment is to be made. No other contrary decision has been brought to our notice. 6. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Bombay High Court, we hold that the order of the Appellate Collector requires no interference. Accordingly, the review notice is discharged so far as the present respondents is concerned and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... . the assessee had to file a refund claim for the excess amount and follow the usual refund procedure. The notice authorises the assessees to claim refund of duty in such cases by making suitable remarks in the RT 12 return and P.L.A. (Personal Ledger Account) while submitting the same. It requires the Superintendent of Central Excise in charge of the factory to make suitable endorsements on the assessment return (while assessing the same) authorising the assessee to take credit of the excess amount in his P.L.A. 7. In the present case, the Appellate Collector rsquo s finding is that the assessee has only followed the provisions of the above Trade Notice. The Superintendent does not appear to have done his duty as enjoined in Rule 1731 read with the Collector rsquo s Trade Notice. There is no justification for denying the refund due to the appellants for the default of the Superintendent of Central Excise. 8. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject this appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 384 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Revision by Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... ing orders have described these goods as timber drum flanges with veneer faced in side. This would show that after being cut to a round shape and a hole is punched in the middle, the product was known by a distinct name since, thereafter, it would have a distinct use and it was therefore thus a distinct commercial product having its own name, character and use. We are therefore satisfied that the Appellate Collector was correct when he held that the product as cleared by the respondents would not be a veneered block board falling under TI-16-B(ii) CET but would be a different product (manufactured out of veneered block board) having its own distinctive name, character and use. Since the same would not fall for classification under any one of TI 1 to 67 CET we hold that the Appellate Collector was correct in classifying the same under TI 68 CET. 5. Accordingly the order of the Appellate Collector is upheld. This appeal is dismissed and the notice dated 28-1-1982 is discharged.
-
1987 (3) TMI 383 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ed) and 2. ldquo Manufactured tobacco rdquo (with which we are concerned). Under the latter sub-item, there are many specified entries, one of which is ldquo smoking mixtures for pipes and cigarettes rsquo and another rdquo hookah tobacco . There is an exemption notification issued under Central Excise Rule 8(1) (Notification No. 59/81 dated 12-3-1981) which exempts from basic excise duty and additional excise duty smoking mixture known as gudaku in the form of grannules from so much of duty leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty leviable on hookah tobacco. 14. Considering the nature of the product under consideration and that of the product considered by the Orissa High Court and the Tariff Entries and the Exemption Notification as adverted to earlier, there is little doubt that the subject product ldquo Gudaku rdquo fell under Item No. 4 and not Item No. 68. 15. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
1987 (3) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aluminium foil imported ... ... ... ... ..... ls . Since the goods had paid that duty as countervailing duty, the present levy is unlawful and I forbid it. 12. The counsel for M/s. Electrolytic Foils Ltd. said that they were prepared to pay duty under Item 68. That, however, is not a proceeding for such an assessment. 13. Order per M. Santhanam, Member (J) .-Though, I have my own reservations about the observations of my Learned Brother set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of his judgment but I would state that etching itself will not amount to manufacture transferring the product into a different one. The argument that the usage had completely changed consequent to the etching cannot be accepted because the end use is not relevant as the tariff itself does not prescribe the same. I am of the view that the nature of the product has not changed due to the process of etching and hence the demand for duty cannot be justified. I agree with my learned brother that the present levy cannot be sustained and the appeal should be allowed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 381 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... on thereof by the Assistant Collector as barred by time was incorrect. 6. As earlier mentioned the Appellate Collector had allowed the appeal on the ground that the claim was not governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules but by the period of limitation prescribed in common law. This Tribunal has in a series of decisions held that such a view is not correct. 7. But in view of our conclusion that the refund claim had been preferred within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise, Rules we uphold the order of the Appellate Collector under which he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim as barred by time. Under the said order the Appellate Collector had directed the Assistant Collector to deal with refund claim as within time and to dispose of the same subject to the same being otherwise in order. We uphold that portion of the order. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 370 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Export of Tapioca Chips ... ... ... ... ..... ratio of the case stated supra the goods exported by the appellants were not liable to duty. 7. emsp In the order in appeal reference is made to the decision of the Govt. of India in the case of export of tapioca by M/s. Bakul Cashew Co. whereunder the Govt. of India had held that tapioca chips are covered by the description ldquo animal feed rdquo under Item 21 of the second schedule of the Customs Tariff Act and would therefore be liable for duty on export. But we may see that this decision of the Govt. of India has been set aside by the Madras High Court as reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 379. Therefore no conclusion against the appellants can be drawn on the basis of the said decision of the Govt. of India. 8. emsp In view of what has been stated above we hold that the demand for payment of duty on the tapioca chips exported by the appellants was not justified. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside, with consequential relief.
-
1987 (3) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand for erroneous refund ... ... ... ... ..... ollector dated 22.9.1983 on the application of the Assistant Collector is invalid and cannot serve as a means for recovering the money. 8. emsp The department should have issued a demand under Section 11A, and if they thought wilful misstatement, suppression and fraud had caused the refund to be made erroneously on 12.10.1981, they should have issued a notice within the five-year time limit permitted by Section 11A for such cases. If there was such suppression, there was time till October 1986 for the departmental authorities to issue a notice using the five-years limit of Section 11A, and, of course, in so doing they should have charged the factory with fraud, suppression etc. They did not do so and evidently they did not have anything to support a charge of suppression and fraud. They chose to follow another route but that route cannot take them to the desired goal. 9. The action of the Appellate Collector was wrong and must be set aside. His order is accordingly set aside.
-
1987 (3) TMI 368 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plant and Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the eligibility of Notification 199/75. 8. emsp We also find that the ground plans in the two manufacturing units are separate. The Central Excise Licences are distinct. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran submitted that the sheds are also different though they are located in the same complex, in view of the paucity of space. 9. emsp The doctrine of unjust enrichment urged by the SDR is also not tenable, in view of the decisions of the Tribunal (cited supra). The citation in 1986 S.T.C. (62) 130 has no relevancy because the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court had to consider the constitutional validity of Section 23-A of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act which provided for retention of the licence fee by the Market Committee instead of refunding it to the dealers. This has no application to the present facts. 10. emsp In view of the above findings, we hold that the present appeal by the department has to be rejected and we accordingly do so.
-
1987 (3) TMI 367 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... fact, this appeal has already been decided by order No. 79/86-B1. The learned SDR requested for time to ascertain what action had been taken under that order of the Tribunal by the Assistant Collector who had been directed to consider the matter de novo. He said he did not have any information whether the Assistant Collector had started fresh proceedings. We have read this order but cannot see sufficient reason for giving him the time requested, because, according to the facts recorded by the Tribunal (in order No. 79/86-B1), it was a dispute about the cross-sectional area of the wires the lower authorities never at any stage examined the facts with reference to the cross-sectional area of the wires. It was this that caused the Bench to remand the case to the Assistant Collector. 15. We do not have this uncertainty here. We know for a fact that the wires have cross-sectional areas that would not be covered by Item 33-B(i). 16. For reasons stated above, the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (3) TMI 366 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... parts of the meters and the tubes are of very minute size and should possess dimensional consistency. They have enclosed Photostat copies of certain pages of what is purported to be the catalogue concerning the subject goods. 3. emsp The appellants did not appear before us and have requested that the appeal might be disposed of on the basis of written submissions. We have, therefore, heard Smt. D. Saxena, Sr. D.R. for the respondent and perused the record. 4. emsp The documents annexed to the memo. of appeal do not help throw any light, in the absence of any write up or such other explanation, of the technical features of the ceramic tubes. The lower authorities have not accepted the claim that these tubes are refractory goods in the absence of any evidence to support the claim. Before us also, the claim remains unsubstantiated. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in consequence upheld. The appeal is dismissed as unsubstantiated.
-
1987 (3) TMI 355 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand being beyond six months’ period, barred by limitation ... ... ... ... ..... orities who exercised jurisdiction over the appellants factory must have visited the factory for various purposes and it is expected that they would have examined the process of manufacture of castings and the knowledge of manufacture scrap can be attributed to the authorities. The appellants have apparently acted under the bona fide belief that since they were re-cycling the scrap, no duty was to be paid in regard to the same. We observe that there are no allegation of fraud or suppression of facts with a view to evade duty in the show cause notice. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the extended time limit beyond six months cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The demand is therefore, hit by limitation and the lower authorities order in this regard is set aside. Appeal is allowed in the above terms. Inasmuch as the case has been decided on the limitation point alone, we do not feel it necessary to give our findings on other points raised.
-
1987 (3) TMI 354 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... designed for the production of a commodity we have to uphold the findings of the Appellate Collector that as the grinder did not merit classification under Heading 84.59(2) it is correctly classified under 84.59(1). Insofar as the bowls are concerned there is no finding by the Appellate Collector who appears to have misdirected himself on a question of fact. Therefore, we are not giving our finding as to whether classification on merits under Chapter 68 was correct or not. We remand this part of the matter to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta for a fresh decision after giving the appellants an opportunity to put forward their case and to file such evidence before him as admissible by law. Accordingly we partly reject this appeal and partly allow it by remand. The impugned order is upheld in insofar as the classification of the grinders is concerned and set aside to the extent that it dealt with the classification of the bowls. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (3) TMI 353 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project import - Registration of contract mandatory ... ... ... ... ..... ported from India. The Notification No. 324/76 refers only to importation and does not cover a situation like the present one wherein goods have been exported and have been reimported. 7. The customs have extended the benefit of another notification No. 204/76 to the goods in question so that the entire value of the ldquo recuperation fan shaft rdquo was not taken into consideration for levy of customs duty but only the estimated cost of repairs, the freight and the insurance only. Application of this notification to the goods in question did not create fresh liability but limited the liability in the manner aforesaid. We, therefore, do not agree with the argument that the affect of applying this notification was to create fresh liability on the goods. In the absence of the notification the appellants would have paid much more customs duty. 8. In the light of these observations, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (3) TMI 352 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glass - Flat glass ... ... ... ... ..... red before us was asked about the use to which the material imported was put. He stated that the same is used as substrate for making electronic circuits. He conceded that the same was not used directly as component part of the wireless receiving set. In this background, the material imported cannot be considered as component or part of the wireless receiving sets. Inasmuch as the benefit of Notification 206/76, is available only in respect of components of wireless receiving sets, the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (3) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 5.05 with CV duty under Tariff Item 68-CET and not under Heading 7333/40 CTA as done by the Customs and confirmed by the Appellate Collector. Shri Sriraman submits that the imported goods in this bill are identifiable parts of Wrapping Tools and are, therefore, correctly assessable under 85.05. In support of his arguments Shri Sriraman relied upon the order dated 12-9-83 (subsequent to the present importation) passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) (Order No. C 3/1113/83). 2. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned S.D.R., perused the invoice and Bill of Entry and does not oppose the factual statement of Shri Sriraman to the effect that the imported goods are identifiable parts of Wrapping Tools. 3. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. Considering the factual position we hold that the goods under importation are correctly classifiable under Heading 85.05 for basic Customs duty and under Tariff Item 68 CET for CV duty. In this view we allow the appeal on this ground
-
1987 (3) TMI 350 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... to Note 6 of Chapter 90 of the CTA. He argued that the goods have been invoiced separately and, therefore, could not be considered to have been supplied free with the instruments. He supported the classification under Heading 42.0 106 CTA. 3. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. There is no dispute that the cases were supplied with the instruments and accessories under the same Bill of Entry and in the same invoice. We note that the cases have part number, a fact undisputed and accepted even in the impugned order. We further note that the instruments as well as the cases were supplied by the same importers. In the circumstances we hold that the cases in question are of a kind normally sold with the instruments and accessories. We find nothing in Note 6 of Chapter 90 to support the arguments that the cases should be supplied free in order to be classified under the same heading as the instruments. In this view we allow the appeal and order consequential relief.
-
1987 (3) TMI 349 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ing, carrying or storing food or preparation alone could be considered as utensils. Since water filter pots cannot be considered as a kitchen-ware, the benefit of Notification 244/77 will not be applicable. IS 7402/1986 prescribed separate standards for filters for drinking water purposes. The filters candles and containers have been specifically described. They are not treated as utensils. 8. On the question of time bar, we are of the view that there is considerable force in the contentions of the appellants. The classification lists have been duly approved by the department and there is no allegation of suppression or wilful mis-statement. We also notice that the Appellate Collector has not considered this aspect. We, therefore, hold that the demand, if any, should be restricted to a period of six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice. 9. Except for the modification in respect of the period of demand as indicated in the order, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1987 (3) TMI 348 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project import - Formal contract contemplated ... ... ... ... ..... tion of the machinery which was to be imported. It is, therefore, an admitted fact that till the time of importation of goods, the appellants rsquo unit was not registered as a factory. 13. This would show that neither of the conditions laid down in the Judgment of Madras High Court, cited by the Ld. SDR, have been fulfilled by the appellants. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine any other aspect inasmuch as if these conditions are not satisfied the benefit of project importation cannot be extended to the imports made by the appellants. The authorities below rejected the claims of the appellants for other reasons. Though we do not agree with the reasons, we cannot overlook the legal position as laid down by the High Court in their Judgment. 14. In the light of the discussions, we hold that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of project importation. We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders though not for the reasons recorded therein. The appeals are dismissed.
........
|
